The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Debate: Universalism

Oh, I failed to note that under the Historical Context, Hinnom Valley speaking of the 1st destruction of Jerusalem, was also likely used by Jesus and Matthew to highlight the coming 2nd destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Matthew likely wrote his Gospel just a few years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Recalling Jesus’ forthright warnings concerning the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and seeing the increasing tension between the Jews and the Romans, Jesus’ warnings would have been a very real tangible threat that Matthew could see coming imminently! And thus he quotes Jesus warnings concerning Hinnom Valley several times in his Gospel, 4 different direct statements but several allusions to Hinnom Valley. Whereas Mark and Luke only quote Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley once each; and John does not quote Jesus even once warning of being cast into Hinnom Valley! I think this is likely the Primary (not Sole) meaning that Matthew intended highlight in quoting Jesus warning of Hinnom Valley. But of course, I could be wrong because neither Jesus nor Matthew explains specifically what He/they mean in the warning of Hinnom Valley.

Acts 20:27 tells us that Paul taught us all what God wants us to know, but you will never find Paul warning the gentiles about Gehenna Fire let alone a place called hell. So I agree that the warnings of Gehenna as well as other parables such as “The rich man and Lazarus” were meant only for the Jews.

Yes, it is Paul that is the predominant witness of UR in scripture. Of course, Paul wrote most of the NT and laid the doctrinal foundation for the Gentile Church. So it only makes sense that people appeal to his writings to support whatever doctrine they believe in. And to me it seems that UR was a foundational concept for Paul, a foundational concept/vision that helps us to understand his writings. This is the reason He specifically affirms UR in Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20 and quotes in Rom. 14 and Phil. 2 Isaiah as affirming UR, and it is the reason that he doesn’t warn repeatedly of people being annihilated or cast into ECT.

Concerning the number of references to UR, I agree that there are only a few that specifically affirm such, but there are many that reference such in general. The ones that are to me the strongest affirmations of UR are Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20, though the “every knee bowing” passages are substantial as well. And let’s not forget that “all are justified freely by his grace” Rom. 3:24 or that “all will be made alive” 1 Cor. 15:22. Oh, and how people dismiss Paul’s vision of God in the end bringing “unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” Eph. 1:10, I don’t know. And it is because Jesus died for “all” 2 Cor. 5:14 that He’s given us the ministry of reconciliation, because in Jesus God was reconciling "the world to himself, not counting their (everyone’s) sins against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5:19! And let’s not forget the “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all” Rom. 11:32. And who would want to limit the atonement when scripture affirms that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all” 1 Tim. 2:6, and is “the Savior of all” 1 Tim. 4:10.

So UR certainly seems to be a major, even foundational theme for Paul, who laid the doctrinal foundation for the Gentile church. Should we dismiss these statements as “few” or inconsequential? I think not. In fact, they have filled me with faith in Jesus not only for the salvation of others, but even for my salvation. And I figure, like Paul, if Jesus can save me, He can save everyone for I like Paul was buried, dead in my religious hypocricy (the most deceptive and hardening of all evil) and yet Jesus raised me to life!

Of course, Paul is not alone in his affirmation of UR; John too seems to affirm such in His gospel. In John, Jesus is “the true light that gives light to every man” 1:9, the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (the kosmos)” 1:29. “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved!” 3:17. And of course John quotes Jesus saying that “when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself” 12:32! And John in his letter affirms that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world 1 Jn. 2.2! And in his apocalypse, John sees “everything in heaven and earth, under the earth, in the sea and all that is in them” worshipping Jesus, Rev. 5:13. And then after the nations have fought God, taken the mark of the beast, and drunk of God’s wrath, Jerusalem stands with open gates to receive them and their due honor to God, and the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations!

So it seems to me that Paul and John both have a tremendous revelation of the Universal Reconciliation of all creation, especially all humanity! And why? Because they both had a tremendous revelation of the Love of God! God sovereignly saved Paul though he was hell-bent on destruction of the church. And John had the privaledge of living long in the love of God, living with Mary Jesus’ mother, and being Jesus’ closest disciple/friend.

To me, these passages and their context are too numerous and explicit to dismiss. Rather, in them I find precious promises of reconciliation, justification, God making all things right!

Oh, I assumed incorrectly that you were going to affirm ECT. I too, if not for the many passages that affirm UR would be a conditionalist and believe the unsaved were annihilated.

Alrighty, let me try to deal with each of the verses you mentioned. I mentioned this at the beginning, but I’ll reiterate it: my goal in this debate isn’t to prove annihilationism as much as it is to disprove universalism. I’m a hopeful universalist myself, but I want to square off honestly with myself the doubts and concerns I see with it biblically. I may end up playing the negative more than the positive. Does this bother you? If so, I’m more than willing to switch it up a bit and be pro-annihilationism or something like that.

**

  1. UR in Romans?**

You say Paul “specifically affirms UR” in Rom. 5:18. Romans 5:18, if you’re looking to find UR support, seems obvious and clear. But what if we look at it as a part of the letter to the Romans as a whole? It gets less clear.

Romans is a letter about Jews and Gentiles. Paul weaves in justification, faith, works, salvation, Israel, church, and anything else he can apply to the conversation - but at the core, it’s about Jews and Gentiles. “How should Christian Gentiles look on and act toward non-faithful Jews? What about God’s covenant with Israel? What are the implications of Christ being Lord over this earth?” These are the questions Paul’s driving at. With this in mind, especially following Romans 4 - which is about the faith that unites Jew and Gentile alike - it seems far more likely that Rom. 5:18 is dealing with all *kinds *of people than every individual soul God ever created. You also mentioned Rom. 11:32; I would give the same answer. I can’t imagine reading Romans 9-11 as a whole and coming out saying that Rom 11:32 has anything to do with the salvation of every soul who ever lived. Romans 9-11 is about God’s covenant with Israel. Israel has been cast aside for a season until the fulness of the Gentiles come in. This isn’t even salvific language - Paul’s simply talking about who ‘God’s people’ are (in this life, in this world). So yes, God has redeemed Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy. Israel will eventually come back into the new covenant in some sense. But to say that “all” applies to each individual who ever lived, and even that it has something to do with some kind of postmortem purification is just a huge leap. Paul’s talking about the covenant faithfulness of God to different nations and people groups.

2. “Every knee shall bow?” Rom. 14, Phil. 2, and Isaiah 45

With this in mind, take a look at Romans 14 prior to the UR proof text you mentioned (these are verses leading up to the Isaiah 45 quotation):

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God… You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat."

Again, this is about ethnic practices among Jews and Gentiles! Keeping sabbath, eating kosher, etc. etc. He’s answering questions about what it means to be among the people of God here and now. He’s apparently specifically reacting to arrogant Gentiles who are scoffing at law-practicing Jews - and why? Because “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.”

Not surprisingly, Paul’s addressing the same sort of thing in Philippians 2 prior to the Isaiah 45 quotation! The church that Philippians was written to was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Paul was stressing unity in Christ to them:

Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Unity, unity, unity. That was Paul’s message. So, now that we’ve covered the contexts of Rom 14 and Phil 2, let’s look at the passage they quote - Isaiah 45:
*
Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.*

Well, this sounds promising for UR proponents. But what about the context of this quote? what’s the chapter addressing as a whole? It’s about Gentile, pagan nations coming before God alongside Israel:

"The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush,[c]
and those tall Sabeans—
they will come over to you
and will be yours;
they will trudge behind you,
coming over to you in chains.
They will bow down before you
and plead with you, saying,
‘Surely God is with you, and there is no other;
there is no other god.’”

Read Isaiah 45 in its entirety. It’s promising that there will come (maybe it has already?) a day when these various nations and people groups at odds with Israel will acknowledge that there is no God but Yahweh. However, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the individual salvation of anybody’s soul. It is about the international, worldwide vindication of Israel’s God. With this in mind, it makes sense that Paul would quote it twice when talking about people from different groups and nations uniting under this exalted Christ. But this is worlds away from the UR interpretation you’re suggesting.

3. Misc., fast responses to the rest of your verses quoted

  • You mentioned that “in Christ all will be made alive.” Let’s look at the context:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

First, he’s only talking about bodily resurrection - which will come to both the saved and unsaved (Daniel 12:2). However, it seems that perhaps he’s only talking about the resurrection unto life here: if he’s specifically addressing a sort of salvific resurrection, he’s only talking about “those who belong to” Christ.

  • Passages like Eph. 1 and Rev. 5 could come after annihilation of the wicked. “All things” can be reconciled *after *nothing evil is allowed to exist. Why not? There were a handful of your quotes that would fall into this answer.

  • I mentioned already that the passages dealing with “the world” are tougher to debate against, but that it makes far more sense to interpret them in light of the evidence opposing UR - not the other way around. “The world” was often used biblically to mean less than the actual world, though. Biblical writers constantly used hyperboles. It also could likely refer to all the nations of the world, since biblical language is usually national by nature.

I’m afraid I’m out of time, but I got through most of your citations. Thoughts?

Thanks so much,
Chris

Doesn’t bother me at all. Every debate must have a “Devil’s Advocate”. :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t see it as a huge leap at all. Instead, I see UR as foundational to understanding Paul’s message in Romans. All are saved by grace, and the only way to participate in the kingdom of God, the present reality of this grace and love is through having faith in Jesus. All have sinned 3.23, and God has grace on all through the sacrifice of Christ 3.26. Having faith in Christ who has justified all, justifies us now. Salvation is wholly based on what Jesus did, not on our faith, but on what He did for us all. And God’s sovereignty can only be understood in light of his love for all. Salvation has always been based in grace. And the sovereignty of God and very limited autonomy of man can only be understood in the light of the love of God for all humanity. And so Rom. 11 affirms that God has mercy on all, and Rom. 14 affirms that every knee shall bow and worship God.

Concerning Rom.5.18 specifically, I don’t see how from the context anyone can say Paul is speaking of “all kinds” of people and not every person. Because the sin of Adam, all people are subject to death, even those who have never sinned like babies or Jesus - every individual. And yet the sacrifice of Christ is greater for it brings justification (being made right) and life to every person! In order to understand this as “all kinds of people” one must impose that understanding upon the context; it doesn’t come from the context. And the reason Israel was chosen was for the blessing of all, not for the exclusion of non-Jews. Paul is calling people to have faith in the God who loves everyone, individually and corporately, Jew and Gentile alike - God who is sovereign over the affairs of men.

I agree, the context is talking about unity, the unity we find in realizing that God is the God of all, not just the God of the Jews, that God loves all, not just the Jews, that God saves all by grace, not just the Jews, that even Abraham was justified by grace through faith and so shall we. This unity flows out of humility recognizing that none of us can save ourselves but it is only the grace of God that saves us. And I know of no greater call to unity than UR! God ultimately reconciles us all, so let’s be about the ministry of reconciliation. God loves all, so let’s love one another. God’s love does not fail to save anyone, so let’s follow the way of God’s love in relating to one another. And if you are privaledged to participate in the kingdom now, it’s not just for you, but it’s part of God’s love for all humanity. And if others are hardened now, it’s ultimately for the good of all.

I agree that Isaiah was seeing a day when all nations would acknowledge there is no other God but Yahweh, the God of the Jews. But nations are made up of individuals. If the whole nation recognized such, then every individual did as well. Of course though, Paul did not necessarily follow standard exegetical principles in interpreting scripture; rather, he tended to interpret things prophetically, as did the others of his day, hearing God speak to them through scripture and reveal to them truth that the original authors might not have even seen in their own writings. Paul saw every tongue worshipping, every knee bowing in reverent honor, everything in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. It’s like Paul can’t make it universal enough to express the vision he has in his heart!

Well, I had better go for now. I’ll try and come back later.
Blessings,
Sherman

Let’s look at more of the context of 1 Cor. 15.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

There is much more to “life” than existance! Ultimately all shall be made alive in Christ! And Jesus will reign until He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power that is set against Him. How are enemies overcome except through reconciliation? As long as an enemy remains an enemy they are not overcome! How is evil overcome? By more evil or by good? How is darkness overcome except by light! How is death overcome, except by life! And the ultimate goal is “so that God may be all in all!” What a beautiful passage. God will be all in your life, my life, in everyone’s life! All in All!

Now to you it might make more sense to interpret the UR passages in the shadow of death and annihilation, but to me they seem to be much more clear in the light of life in and through the sacrifice of Christ.

I’m curious Chris, believing in annihilation which do you limit, the scope or effect of the sacrifice of Christ? And which do you limit, the sovereignty or the love of God? To me it seems that Paul limits neither the scope or the effect of the atonement, and neither the sovereignty or the love of God. God is sovereign over all nations and all individuals. He not only knows the plans he has for nations, but the plans He has for us individually. And God not only loves groups of people, but He loves everyone, each individual. Shoot, God even counts the hairs on one’s head. Of course, that’s easy on me! :laughing:

A primary message of the New Testament is that God is not only the God of the Jews, but that God is the God of all nations and every individual, and that relationship with God is not only, even primarily a national right or privaledge but it is an individual right and privaledge!

Concerning UR passages being hyperbole, I’d agree with you if they were written in hyperbole like many, if not most of the judgment passages; but they are not. Jesus did not just come to save some, but to save the whole world. He did not come to just reconcile some of creation, but all of creation. That is a statement of purpose, intent, a goal, not just wishful thinking.

And I love Col. 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19** For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.**

Everything was created by and for God. Everything exists by Him and through Him and for Him. God intends to reconcile all things to himself. And note that reconcile recognizes the current adversarial relationship. But His will is to reconcile everthing in heaven, and on earth, everthing visible and invisible, all powers and authorities! How are enemies overcome, except by reconciliation. To kill or annihilate an enemy is not to overcome them for they remain an enemy forever, especially if we “love our enemies” like God does.

Chris, I just don’t see how people dismiss such passages as hyperbole or poetry or wishful thinking! It’s the passages concerning judgment and punishment of sin that are typically couched in metaphor, hyperbole, parable, and even apocalyptic literature. But these UR passages are straight-forward affirmations of faith and vision, not hyperbole, metaphor, or parable.

I’m curious though… how do you interpret Romans 9-11? and would you agree that 9-11 are at the core of the letter’s message? I agree with almost everything you’re saying about grace, love, salvation, faith etc. I’m just not sure that you’re totally grasping the bigger messages of Romans. I’d encourage you to skim this if you ever have the chance, but it is pretty lengthy: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

My question for you would be: If UR is foundational to understanding Romans, why is it so scarcely mentioned? (Assuming 5, 11, and 14 are really getting at that. What you’re saying is coherent and makes sense, but you’re not really providing much exegetical reasoning to argue that 14 or 11 have anything to do with UR. Would you consider proving to me contextually that 11 and 14 make sense with a UR interpretation? (Both in context with the verses preceding it and the letter as a whole). I’m more open to 5 simply because I’m not as familiar with its context in the letter. I’m planning on looking into that.

Like I said, I’m admittedly not as familiar with the context of this passage. I’m skeptical, but I’ll leave it alone for now for the sake of better responding to the others.

I think I sense a bit of a sleight-of-hand argument here. Let me try to work out what I think you’re saying:

  1. Phil. 2, Isaiah 45, and Rom. 14 are all about unity of Jews and Gentiles
  2. UR would be something that could unify Jews and Gentiles
  3. Therefore, UR must be what Phil. 2, Isaiah 45, and Rom. 14 are talking about

See the leap there? Yes, UR is one viable option that could bring unity between Jews and Gentiles. But… so could an endless number of other things. The law of liberty unites Jew and Gentiles; eating at the same table unites Jew and Gentile; on and on. You’re more or less using this logical leap to read UR into any text about unity. Exegetically, UR just doesn’t seem to work well in Romans 14 or Philippians 2, much less in Isaiah 45. If UR is ‘foundational’ to these passages, then why isn’t it even remotely specified? Can you contextually prove to me that these passages even have anything to do with postmortem salvation at all? I’m pretty well convinced that they are entirely and only about who the people of God are, here and now. They are dealing with how Jews and Gentiles in Rome should behave together and live and eat and drink and worship together.

Yes, nations are made up of individuals - but the Bible doesn’t usually talk about them that way. Sodom is regarded as entirely evil to God, even with the righteous Lot and his family in it. Israel is talked about countless times in the prophets as wicked, adulterous, and evil - even when a righteous remnant remains.

Nations are not talked about as ‘every individual inside a nation’ biblically. They’re talked about in more of a ‘general consensus of the people inside them’ way.

Now, that last bit strikes me as a bit dangerous. You’re more or less suggesting that we read Paul’s alleged UR in Rom. 14 or Phil. 2 into the very text he’s quoting. I would suggest that this is completely backwards. I’ve already extensively covered why I think UR is a poor interpretation of these 2 passages. Paul was actually very, very careful about his OT references. It is absolutely critical to understand the entire passage out of which Paul quotes something (which is why I brought up the whole of Isaiah 45). Yes, sometimes (and very rarely) he applies a further meaning - but only when his own context is absolutely clear about it.

If UR is at the heart of what Paul’s getting at in both Phil. 2 and Rom. 14, why does neither passage even touch upon salvation? and why would he throw in an Isaiah quote that didn’t have anything to do with salvation to prove his point?

Under my interpretation, Phil. 2, Rom. 14, and Isaiah 45 all have the same basic message and the context surrounding Paul’s writing makes sense. I’m just feeling that you’re reading too much ‘salvation’ into Paul’s writing. He arguably spent more time addressing community and unity than he ever did salvation - especially in a postmortem sense.

Well, yes, there is more to ‘life’ than existence. But 1. Paul seems to be talking literally in 15:22 about physical life and physical death, and 2. it seems likely to me that 15:22 is particularly dealing with the resurrection of ‘those who belong to Christ’ - the believers.

Yes, Jesus will reign until he has “destroyed all dominion, authority, and power that is set against Him.” You say “overcome,” not Paul. The word Paul uses is katargēsē. It’s only used twice in 1 Cor., but once in Hebrews. Let’s look at another use to further understand its meaning:

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break/destroy (katargēsē) the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil…” - Hebrews 2:14

He destroyed the power of the devil. He didn’t ‘redeem’ it. So 1 Cor. 15 is sounding pretty compatible with annihilationism to me.

I suppose I’d give the standard Arminian answer: I don’t limit the respect God has for free will. His scope may well have been universal; I don’t know. But, the problem here is that it pits rationality against scripture. I’m certainly not capable of explaining God’s plan of salvation in all its beautiful complexity and mystery! Who can know the mind of God and be his counselor? But I can be faithful to the scriptures and analyze what they say carefully. As much as UR may be more appealing or make more rational sense, that doesn’t make it more biblical.

I have no problem admitting that Col. 1 seems to have universalist overtones; I can see that. Keep in mind who Colossians was written to, though. Paul was confronting problems of Gnosticism, which said that the physical and spiritual were entirely separated and could never be united. In view of the God-man Christ, Paul was ardently defending that - though Christ was human - he was also ‘the firstborn of all creation’ and on and on. He’s defending the cosmic radiance of Christ, and describing him in the most powerful terms he can grasp. He may have been prone to using some intense language here that borders on hyperbole. It would be like explaining the size of earth to a 4-year-old; you may use some bigger words than you would when talking to a 40-year-old.

Ahhhh! Looks like I accidentally posted that one reply like 4-5 times. Sorry about that. I can’t figure out how to delete them! :blush:

Don’t worry. Everyone does that sooner or later. I fixed it.

I believe that Romans 9-11 that affirms the sovereignty of God needs to be understood on the foundation of the vision affirmed in Romans 5 that is the answer to the problem of sin presented in Romans 3. God sovereignly chose Israel not to the exclusion of the rest of the world but for the blessing of the whole world. And God sovereignly blinded the Jews to the reality of who Jesus is to accomplish the reconciliation of the Gentiles. And God will sovereignly move in the Jews some day again for the culmination of the blessing of the whole world. God sovereignly chooses, not for the exclusion of others but for the inclusion of all.

I don’t know that I can “prove” to you anything, I can only share why I’ve come to believe that UR is so foundational to Paul’s writings. Concerning Romans 11, after Paul repeatedly affirms that God sovereignly cut off, hardened Israel and grafted in the Gentiles, and warning the Gentiles that they too could be just as easily cut off, he affirms that God ultimately bound everyone over to disobedience so that He could have mercy on all. And then in the Doxology, Paul in song affirms that everything is ultimately by and for God. As I read through Paul affirming that God lifts some to close relationship with Him and estranges others, He does so for the good of all and ultimately to reconcile all to himself. Paul affirms that God loves all, that all are under the dominion (control, rule, reign, slaves to) sin (3:9) and explicitly says that God justifies all by grace which is to be received in faith (3:23). So is it that justification for us individually is received by faith, or is it that the justification of all is to be received in faith and this faith that God justifies all empowers us to be individually justified! I’ve come to believe both. If God promises to save everyone by grace, then I can trust He’ll save me by grace! If God only saves some by grace, then maybe I’m not part of that some either by His choice or mine!

Anyhow, then in 5 Paul affirms that just as sin came into the world by one man and thus all men ultimately came under the dominion of sin, condemnation, and death; even so by the atonement, the righteous act of Jesus all shall ultimately come under the dominion of righteousness, justification, and life!

Well, must go for now. Will add more later.
Blessings,
Sherman

Chris,

I love your style and you raise good questions. Just a few notes on central Romans texts at issue. On 5:18f, R. Bell did his doctoral dissertation on this and summarizes his findings In “Romans 5:18,19 & Universal Salvation” in the journal New Testament Studies (2002) 417-432. Also the N.T. scholar at Luther Seminary, A. J. Hultgren, comes to similar conclusions in his new Romans commentary, and in Paul’s Gospel and Mission: His Outlook in Romans(see pages 82-124). (And have you read Yale scholar, Keith de Rose on this (his web page can be googled)? My briefest puzzlement would be how Paul’s 2 “all men” statements (in Adam & in Christ) can be apparently parallel, if they don’t refer to the same inclusive population. Doesn’t this assert that all in Adam will be justified in as plain a way as language would make possible?

On chapters 9-11: I am an N.T. Wright afficionado, but his take on this section appears to have little support, especially that Paul’s reference to “Israel” is only to the spiritual church that is saved, not to ethnic Jews. In studies with Dr. John Barclay, N.T. prof at Durham, he said that a convention of N.T. scholars in Sydney pressed Wright on this after a talk, and every single one of them believed Wright’s interpretation violated the context (Barclay did his Ph.D under Wright). It was Talbott’s interpretation of 9-11 that convinced me to shift from the traditional view. Parry also has a great appendix on it in his revised “Evangelical Universalist.” Are you familiar with their arguments? In brief, it appears to me that Paul is arguing that God can (and will) save the “Israel” who looks lost in unbelief. He ultimately moves from depression over their position to doxology because of the explanation of God’s ways that he has offered. This is so different from the exegesis I was taught at Fuller, that it overturned my understanding of what God can do. Do you follow Wright here, or what do you think Paul in context means by “all Israel” being “saved”?

Grace be with you,
Bob

P.S. If I thought the Bible was a systematic theology, and declared universalism, I too would expect it to emphasize it often in plain language. But if it involves the sort of progressive revelation and historical development that it appears to be, I’m not sure I would. If James D.G. Dunn is right in “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” that most N.T. writers fall short of plainly asserting Jesus’ deity, should we discount that belief? Or if most writers show no awareness of a virgin birth, should we conclude that only two mentions is a huge obstacle to embracing that belief? It seem to me that, like most beliefs, the universalism issue, hangs only upon how convinced one is that some particular texts clearly support it.

Yes, Jesus destroyed the power of the devil, not the devil. If one destroys the power of another, he overcomes them. And Paul is talking about the ressurection, life after death, thus much more than just physical life or existance, but life in the age to come, eternal life.

But you didn’t answer my question. Is it the scope or the effect of the atonement that you limit. Arminianist’s limit the effect/power of the atonement, affirming that it’s not ultimately God alone who saves us, but it’s a combination of God and us. Thus the scope is universal but not the effect, because our salvation for the Arminian is ultimately dependant upon us, our choices, and not upon God. And I don’t think the problem with this is pitting rationality against scripture, but scripture against scripture. Scripture affirms both that God is love and that God is sovereign. If both are accepted as true then it follows that God will sovereignly save all whom he loves. It’s when one believes that not all are saved that one must either limit the sovereignty of God (Arminianism) or the love of God (Calvinism), and find some way to dismiss the verses that affirm the salvation of all.

Arminianist limit the sovereignty of God and instead that concerning salvation man is sovereign, well, some people are sovereign. Many people never have a “choice”, some going to heaven and others not apart from their choice. For example, most evangelicals assume children that die young automatically are saved, and adults who never hear of Jesus and die do not go to heaven because they never chose to believe in Jesus.

Concerning UR being more appealing and making more sense but not being more Biblical, to me it is more biblical and makes more sense. To me there are a few passages that in their context strongly affirm UR (Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20, John 9:42, and 1 Tim. 4:10 in particular). And other passages affirm UR though they are not specifically discussing that subject in the immediate context; rather, UR was affirmed in passing and could be taken as a generality or affirmation.

So you’re saying that Col. 1 has “universalist overtones”, but in short you think that Paul was just speaking in hyperbole, using overstatement poetically to affirm the “cosmic radiance of Christ” but didn’t really mean that Jesus will be Lord of all. One can either accept this and other such passages in faith or dismiss them as being hyperbole, not really meaning what they actually say.

There is nothing wrong with using hyperbole or generalizations in communicating one’s point. Usually though, such hyperbole or generalization is readily identifiable. For example, Jesus said if your eye sins, pluck it out; it’s pretty obvious He didn’t really mean that for several reasons. For one, it’s not the fault of the “eye”, but the fault lies in our selfish desires and twisted thinking. One must assume Col. 1 is hyperbole, for it is not evident based upon the literary context.

It was Col. 1 and Rom. 5 that were the strongest voices calling me to believe in UR. The more I studied their context, ruminated over their fit within their particular books, the more I was drawn to believe in UR. So I switched my studies to the penalty of sin and Hell, quickly and suprisingly finding that Hell was not actually Biblical and finding indications in scripture of post-mortem repentance and salvation, and finding that judgment itself even seems to have remedial connotations. And then finding that Gehenna did not necessarily affirm ECT, even for the Pharisees, was ultimately the tipping point that freed me to accept in faith that God is love, God is sovereign, and that Jesus is savior of all in deed not just in title and ultimately reconciles all of creation to himself.

Using the Weslyan Quadrilateral, I see UR affirmed in 1) scripture and 2) it certainly makes sense, reason. Concerning 3) experience, UR certainly lines up with what I’ve experienced of God. I know that I did not “choose” God, but that He chose me. And having experienced the love and grace of God even in judgment which burnt the hell out of me, my experience of God, salvation, and judgment affirms UR. Only 4) tradition seems to cause me any doubt and is the primary thing that hinders people from having faith in Jesus for the salvation of others, not just themselves. But even concerning tradition, I’m thankful to know that though a relative minority belief, UR is certainly not something that is foreign to believers throughout history. But then I could be wrong and salvation is ultimately dependant upon us (Arminianism) or God does not ultimately love all (Calvinism).

Thanks so much for the thoughts, Bob! First, I’d love to read some of those sources you mentioned at the top, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to find them online. Do you know of any links maybe?

The parallel ‘all’ statements could potentially be ethnic, but it seems less likely to me honestly. If the context was dealing with Jews & Gentiles, then he could state that just as all kinds of men died in Adam, all kinds of men live in Christ. But again, this and Col. 1 are hard to explain away without UR.

I had totally forgotten about that whole aspect of Wright’s interpretation! I loved his commentary on the rest of Romans, but I always disagreed with that bit about Israel in 11. I’m with you on that.

Very good point in the p.s. section. I totally can see that.

Thanks again,
Chris

Hi Chris,

Thanks! It appears that our readings of the two Romans crux texts is similar. As you say, seeing the parallel all’s as ‘some’ from ‘all ethnic groups’ doesn’t appear to fit the context. I’m not sure Paul ever uses pas this way to denote some from all groups. I know it can be used hyperbolically, but is there any text where it clearly refers to all ethnic groups? Especially when the noun (“men”) is specified, it seems that the grammatical meaning of, in Adam “all men,” intends to declare the larger species to be sinful (the classic conclusion) as clearly as language can.

On the works cited on Romans 5, Richard Bells monograph can be obtained here: amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/ … .+Hultgren.

Blessings,
Bob

Hi Chris,
Well, we’ve looked at the passages that to me affirm UR (particularly Rom. 5:18 and Col. 1:20) , and several others that affirm UR though they could possibly be taken as generalizations or hyperbole. To me, the weight of evidence in scripture that seems to affirm UR is significant, compelling. Your second statement was:

For me, I find that scripture has very little, if any, support for an “eternal view of hell”, especially as in ECT but even as in Annihilation. For example, as you know, words interpreted Hell in scripture do not mean Hell. Sheol & Hades mean grave, realm of the dead, and do not necessarily imply ECT or even annihilation. Gehenna is Hinnom Valley, an actual place which is used metaphorically to speak of 1) if it was a trash dump having a life end in the trash, 2) historically was a place of idolatry, sacrificing ones children to one’s idol and bringing destruction to one’s life and all that one loves, and 3) “IF” the Pharisees used it to speak of potential non-specific punishment of people in the afterlife, and “IF” Jesus meant to affirm this one doctrine of the Pharisees, it could reference non-specific (remedial, annihilation, and/or indefinitely long) punishment.

To me, something so important as ECT, if it were a real threat, it seems to me that it would be specifically named and described and warned of repeatedly in scripture, especially in the Law. But it’s not once named or even described in the OT. And though ECT is read into the passages warning of Hinnom Valley or the Dead Sea (the lake of the fire and the brimstone), neither specifically affirms such. Thus even the NT does not specifically and repeatedly affirm ECT or even annihilation.

In fact, though passages that affirm UR are couched in didactic or historical narrative passages, passages that affirm punishment of sin are typically presented in metaphor, hyperbole, and even apocalyptic styles of writing, meant to emotionally move people to repentance, but not meant to communicate specifics concerning the negative results of sin.

For me, it was studying what scripture actually affirms concerning the punishment/results of sin that freed me to accept in faith that Jesus does not fail to (Arminianism) or choose not to (Calvinism) save anyone!

Hey Sherman,

I’m so sorry I haven’t replied for these last several days! I’ve been out of town on a church trip and just got home this afternoon. I’ll reply somewhat conclusively as soon as I’m able - though I’ll be out of town again tomorrow. Definitely by Monday.

Thanks for all your replies - sorry about that;
Chris

Sherman and Bob,

This is, more or less, what I’ve come to believe in actuality (leaving the debate behind):

  1. I think that ECT is flatly unbiblical
  2. I think that annihilationism and universalism are both viable biblical options
  3. I think that the vast majority of scripture never touches on the topic of ‘hell’ (any punitive afterlife), and that most of the passages traditionally interpreted as referring to hell actually refer to the judgment of AD 70
  4. I think that ‘Gehenna’ will become ‘new Gehenna:’ a real, physical place in a real, physical “new heavens and new earth,” outside the “new Jerusalem”
  5. I think that the hints of universalism in Rev. 21-22 are a universalist’s best argument, but that only a few other passages (including Rom. 5 and Col. 1), actually support the doctrine
  6. I think that where the Bible is vague or silent, a Christian is free to a) imagine what best fits their personal and biblical understanding of God’s character and b) apply it hypothetically to the doctrine in question
  7. I think that all in this new Gehenna will eventually be saved, but that the Bible does not leave enough proof on the matter to be absolutely certain on the matter

Thanks so much for debating guys, I’d love to keep casually discussing stuff!
Chris

Hi Chris,

Thanks for summing up your conclusions, of which I’m largely sympathetic. I think “certainty” or assurance of one’s convictions as in #7 is often not simply based on the Bible’s clarity. Rather, as you imply in #6, when the Bible seems to offer a mix of complex data or appears less than definitive, it is our sense of God’s character (informed by our sense of the overarching Biblical narrative as well as our conscience) which rightly influences where we place our bets.

Hi Chris,

I too have enjoyed our conversation and look forward to more to come. And I pray that you are blessed in your studies at school and have great favor and wisdom. Oh, and I appreciate you prefacing you affirmations with “I think”. I’m glad you’re thinking and that you’re not necessarily equating what you “think” with what is necessarily true. It signifies humility to me which is precious in the sight of the Lord!

Blessings,
Sherman